Chriskmee

joined 2 years ago
[–] Chriskmee@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

No problem, It's interesting how differently the terms are used within and outside of the atheist community. I think it's also important to realize that most Atheists are going to have more certainty when it comes to a specific God not existing, compared to the general concept of a God. It's much more likely that some kind of God exists than the specific one of a given religion exists. Like I would personally put the general idea of a God existing at maybe 50% (like a God who created the universe and let nature take its course), but the specific God of a given religion that listens to your prayers at near 0%.

Antitheist is one term, I think the more common one in the same area would be Gnostic Atheist, which given my definitions from before would claim knowledge that gods don't exist.

As with anything there are always more sub categories, some go as far as to say knowledge of God is unknowable, or that no form of a God exists, but most seem to stick with Agnostic Atheist, or just Atheist.

[–] Chriskmee@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

At least among most Atheists it's defined as lack of belief. It's also arguably the most correct definition based on the parts of the word itself.

Theist is usually defined as "with belief", so it makes sense that A-theist means without belief. Adding that A to another word usually means without, like asymptomatic (without symptoms) or amoral (without morals).

The same thing can be said with Agnostic, Gnostic is with knowledge, A-gnostic is without knowledge.

Agnostic/Gnostic answers the question of "do you have knowledge that a God exists". Atheist/Theist answers the question of "do you have belief that a God exists".

[–] Chriskmee@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago (4 children)

I think calling Atheism a religion does degrade its value. It brings atheism into the same category as religion, it promotes the idea that atheists need just as much faith as religious people, it basically turns science into a religion.

Just to be clear, I define Atheism as "without belief in a God", that would include anyone saying they are agnostic.

[–] Chriskmee@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

He bought a small dying company and turned it into the most valuable one they ever existed. He made the Tesla we know today.

[–] Chriskmee@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

He made the Tesla we know today, the Tesla we know today would not have existed without Musk, it likely would have died a small silicon valley startup that nobody had ever heard of.

Just because I hate him doesn't mean I won't give him credit for doing what he did.

[–] Chriskmee@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

As much as I hate Musk, I doubt something that ambitious would be tried without him or someone like him. Same with starting a fully EV car company when everyone thought we were just but ready for it. Yes the engineers are the ones who do the work, but it takes someone willing to risk a lot of money, and the ability to bring in more money, to make that stuff happen.

[–] Chriskmee@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

In all honesty, it sounds nice and I am not against the idea, but I really have a hard time seeing it having any measurable effect.

[–] Chriskmee@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

That's an interesting idea, but not something I would expect Florida to have much say in.

[–] Chriskmee@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (10 children)

I'm curious, what could Florida do to reduce ocean temperatures with this money?

[–] Chriskmee@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

I could be wrong, but I thought the only reason Japanese whaling wasn't profitable is that it's for "research" so it can't be for profit, and also all the physical harassment from "eco terrorist" groups.

[–] Chriskmee@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

To achieve this goal, i’m saying that if google were to lose profits from people using ad blockers, they are more likely to extract profits from their creators than sacrifice their bottom line.

The creators are their product, the adblock users cost everyone money and provide no benefit, why would they punish their product over the users costing them money? The adblock users aren't the bottom line, they are no benefit, and cost both YouTube and the creators in lost revenue.

This is why i wholeheartedly support things like Patreon, Ko-Fi, etc. because that directly supports creators and means that they don’t have to completely rely on a company that no longer says “don’t be evil”.

That's great and all, but YouTube still has bills to pay, they can't just let you use the service free without ads, let you just give money to creators through those other services, and expect to even break even.

[–] Chriskmee@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

What's crazy is that you can come from a country like the US, having never driven a manual car before, and go legally rent and drive a manual car on the roads in the UK.

view more: ‹ prev next ›